Followup on the social networking site report I made to NC LE departments in December:
I did not save the screenshots before, as I had already passed them on and I wanted to make sure that LE had a record of them. The record had included my own IP information so that if LE did a comprehensive investigation, they would have been able to put into evidence that I would have accessed the site on a certain date and time. In this way, they could have subpoenaed FB to correlate MY contact to the existence of the website. From there, they could have determined the source of the site, including information with regard to creating of the website.
Keep in mind, ANYONE can make a Facebook site, and put in whatever information they want, INCLUDING that of an offender. So LE not only has to determine that the site belongs to an offender, but for determining if a felony crime had been committed, they have to absolutely tie in the offender with the site, and that includes tying in actual visitation data, including times and verified computer usage from identified machines.
Now, for the most part I got the feeling the sites were real (that is, not created by an outside agent), so to that end, a felony violation is in order. However, I don't get the feeling that prosecutors have passed on to LE that they want to prosecute these cases unless there is actual intent of abuse of a child or victim on the site, or there was corroborating or ancilliary activity by the offender that would warrant charges. Keep in mind, most of the charges about social networking sites in NC are brought about in ADDITION to other charges. It's like a seat belt law not being enforced unless the driver were caught speeding, for instance.
Now, you and I may be horrified (and indeed, I'm livid). But the problem facing many of the departments are a combination of several factor, not the least of which is COST. It costs departments thousands of dollars per arrest, including investigation, incarceration, court costs, etc. And while they take registration of addresses seriously, as they denote physical presence, they haven't gotten the message that online presence can be just as deadly.
But I DID find something interesting: When I revisited the 80 names on Facebook that matched the NCSOR, I found most of them had been deleted. In other words, I would imagine that someone probably got word to the offender, and they either deleted the page; alternatively, someone posted a deletion request to Facebook. In either case, no arrests were made, and I presume no investigation into a felony was ever started.
In any case, the Internet is too ubiquitous to be able to monitor for every offender UNLESS they are completely banned from access altogether. In addition, lawsuits have been filed by RSO's with regard to Internet usage. Louisiana is one state whose felony RSO usage of Internet laws has been ruled unconstitutional by a Clinton-appointed federal judge. First amendment rights, etc.
But for the immediate case in NC, there is no real clamor to arrest every offender with a FB account. If enough people complained, then it may get noticed. But the problems of enforcement, including the costs, would only be starting.